To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present — Barkon
To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon
Your description of free will is consistent with compatibilism. The alternative is Libertarian Free Will (LFW) which most people treat as entailing the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP). According to the PAP, when we make a freely-willed choice, we could have made a different choice. (I happen to think that's absurd). On the other hand, compatibilism is consistent with PAFP: the principle of alternative FUTURE possibilities - and that's what you describe. Mental causation is all that's required to account for the PAFP and compatibilism.I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. — Barkon
Your description of free will is consistent with compatibilism. The alternative is Libertarian Free Will (LFW) which most people treat as entailing the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP). According to the PAP, when we make a freely-willed choice, we could have made a different choice. (I happen to think that's absurd). On the other hand, compatibilism is consistent with PAFP: the principle of alternative FUTURE possibilities - and that's what you describe. Mental causation is all that's required to account for the PAFP and compatibilism. — Relativist
No alternative decision could have been made given that specific set of factors. — Relativist
The point is simply this: at the point we make a decision, there is a set of determining factors: beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. — Relativist
I'm not sure I understand your point. We have the potential to be changed by everything we experience, and this can impact the choices we make in the future.No alternative decision could have been made given that specific set of factors. — Relativist
What about playing the lottery and having one's life changed by a random computer algorithm? Or a computer glitch that affects a streetlight causing a collision or death? — Outlander
No, because the future hasn't happened. My point is that your choices establish the future.I have no idea what this topic is about. If I go to my refrigerator and take out the ham and cheese for a sandwich, then put it back and make pb&j, have I changed the future? Is that the idea? — Patterner
I'm not sure I understand your point. — Relativist
Sure. If we could measure EVERYTHING. In theory, we could tell how the coin would land if we had all of the variables at the instant it lost contact with your hand. The question is whether or not the instant it leaves your hand is as knowable, in theory.(I had a debate earlier which a person asserted a coin flip is in fact not random as, much like your rock example, could in theory be measured by force, friction, etc.) — Outlander
I'm asserting that if we aim to change course, i.e. switch the mode we're in (what we're doing right now) it changes the future indirectly. — Barkon
I agree.So even if you say these are determining factors, they are not factors that threaten free will. — Ludwig V
Generally, computers don't really generate random numbers - they generate pseudo-random numbers. And computer glitches are also predictable, in principle (they aren't magic: they're consistent with laws of nature; you can't produce indeterminacy from deterministic processes). So these are still fully deteministic.I was just suggesting the modern presence of certain factors that truly cannot be determined (random computer generation or glitches in technology), similar but NOT like the flipping of a coin (I had a debate earlier which a person asserted a coin flip is in fact not random as, much like your rock example, could in theory be measured by force, friction, etc.) whereas a true random event such as random number generation or a glitch cannot. I think? — Outlander
On the other hand, compatibilism is consistent with PAFP: the principle of alternative FUTURE possibilities - and that's what you describe. — Relativist
And those things that we cause were the product of our mental processes, influenced by our genetic and psychological make-up. — Relativist
Assuming there's no quantum indeterminacy in the mix, then there is only one possible future. But you nevertheless contribute to what that future will be.If there are actual alternative future possibilities, why would we not have been able to do otherwise than we did in the past? By alternative future possibilities do you mean alternative ontological possibilities or merely alternative epistemological possibilities on account of the fact that we cannot know what the future will be? — Janus
Even though mental states are the product of neural processes, it's still the case that there is mental causation. So your thoughts and feelings actually do affect the world in a unique way. The 'self' is your consciousness; a "machine" that develops intentions and acts upon them. You are caused to be what you are, but you were not caused through prior intent (not entirely).But is there any free 'self' that causes those mental processes or are they the result of neural processes of which we are completely unaware, and thus have no control over — Janus
But you nevertheless contribute to what that future will be. — Relativist
If there was no free will, our bodies would run off like criminals and try to take us for a ride. — Barkon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.